Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[MarkE]

You have not said What??
GIGO and NASA in the same breathe /sentence ?
specifically implying that NASA does Garbage testing/research... Your a legend in your own mind MarkiE

So says the individual who concocts nonsense like this, and then denies he made it up:

yeah, its pot luck all the Garbage they fire into space across squillions of miles
and land on a Fleas Buttocks .
all Garbage pot luck ..
their Clueless ...

Just ask Mark E he'll tell you all about it.

Somehow you miss that NASA is a large organization that sometimes does great things and sometimes makes terrible blunders.  Not bothering to test the mirror in the Hubble before it went up cost hundreds of millions.  Mistaking 1/3 burn through on o-rings for 300% safety margin cost seven people their lives.  Testing for micro Newton forces when pumping 100's of Watts of E/M energy without drawing a vacuum was useless for that purpose.  The Eagleworks team acknowledged that.  That is why they plan tests with a hard vacuum, which despite the editor's zeal the team leader says that they haven't conducted those tests yet.  But that's OK, don't let facts get in the way of your anger.  It's not physics that holds back your fantasies.  It's those darn skeptics always wanting actual evidence to go with extraordinary claims.  If you have followed the Shawyer saga you should be familiar with the fact that SME's have carefully checked his math and found that he misaccounted for the effects of his tapers.

I have better things to do than search for your GIGO NASA  comment on this forum.
but calling me a Liar for repeating it is pretty cowardly ..and I can absolutely guarantee you
something you would NEVER say if we were sitting across the table from each other.

Well you can fantasize all you want about what you think I've said and how indignant you want to feel about it.  If you want to call me out on something I've said then find what I actually said or wrote and get it right.  Otherwise you just make yourself look like a stammering fool.  If you are suggesting that being confronted with that lends you to violence then I think you need some therapy.

But it does speak volumes about your character .

**
Although I must add ,perhaps it was another Mark E that made that "GIGO NASA" post ??
at times you do seem to suffer from some form of "I never said that" alter ego...
maybe Sterling is onto something....?

are there Other  Mark E's in the clubhouse making nasty posts about organizations
at the skill level of NASA ..so as to uphold their belief system... ??

LOL, if you want to hold me to anything I've said, find the quote and its context.   Go ahead and try to find some quote where I take all of NASA to task.  Or bettery yet get a new prescription for your reading glasses.

[MarkE]

then gravity is also not an energy source; but yet gravity can be used to release stored potential energy(which also wouldn't exist without gravity).  CLocks for many centuries+ have used gravity to move weights to supply power.
Sure the weights have to be reset, and I guess you'd argue that it's the mass of the weight having potential energy which is the energy source; but without gravity that source wouldn't exist.

Gravity is not the energy source.  Gravity is a conservative field.  Someone put gravitational energy into the weight of that grandfather clock by raising the weight.  That potential energy was subsequently released as the clock ran down and the weight fell to its starting position.  Over any traverse from starting point to starting point gravity neither added nor took away any energy from the weight.

Bouyancy is directly related to gravity.  Without gravity there is no bouyancy.
So if gravity can be used to make something do work, so can bouyancy.

But gravity is not an energy source and so neither is buoyancy.  The scam artists at Rosch are trying to convince people that they lift water and lower water ending up at the same state as they started but with energy left over.  It is a bald faced lie.

Whatever, this is like arguing that batteries aren't an energy source.  (it's the chemical reaction within them is the energy source)

Batteries are energy stores.  If you have primary batteries, then you get to use the stored energy once and then you have a trash problem.  If they are secondary batteries, then first you have to charge them, and then you can get most of that energy back.  At least you do with the common commercially available chemistries.

[TinselKoala]

How is the chain of floats connected to this sprocket which transfers the rotation to the gearing that speeds up the motion to drive the generator? What happens to the floats at the top of the assembly? How do they follow the chain around the top sprocket without interfering with this secondary chain and sprocket that must be driving the transmission?

This puts further constraints on the shape and size of the float buckets.

[MarkE]

Remember that many of John Keeley's devices were powered by compressed air, piped into the devices by hidden plumbing or even thin tubing masquerading as single wires. The AuKW device might simply have another hidden air pump somewhere, putting more air into it, through hidden plumbing, perhaps coming in through the wall brackets or some other route. Electrical measurements would not reveal this source of extra power input; it would take a careful teardown and inspection of the apparatus (and the environment) to rule out something like this.
But it would take a lot of air to enable a 4.8 kW output, and float system would have to be moving pretty fast. Certainly faster than what is shown in the video of the operating top part of the assembly, using reasonable assumptions as to the geometry of the floats attached to the chains inside that particular tube.

How is the power from the actual chain of floats transferred to the sprocket that is connected to the pulleys that actually drive the generator?

I have estimated based on the small visible bubble volume that the bubble flow is imparting far less than 10W mechanical power.  It may well be that the "generator" is a motor required to drive the whole thing.  The folks on overunity.de have done a good job of performing lots of calculations on how much power could be transmitted through the mechanisms under various conditions.  It is all moot because as you have just eloquently summarized:  Buoyancy is not an energy source.  Water in the tank moves up, water in the tank falls down, and the result is zero sum gain.  The promised free energy source does not exist anymore than that security case full of cash in Amsterdam.

[d3x0r]

How is the chain of floats connected to this sprocket which transfers the rotation to the gearing that speeds up the motion to drive the generator? What happens to the floats at the top of the assembly? How do they follow the chain around the top sprocket without interfering with this secondary chain and sprocket that must be driving the transmission?

This puts further constraints on the shape and size of the float buckets.

Chain sprocket A
|    Chain sprocket B
|    |  Output sprocket - another chain entirely
V   V V
|---|-|


|     |
|     |
|     |   chain paths - do not interfere.  simple enough.


|---|   <-- bottom shaft without extension and extra drive gear


During operation - it doesn't return to initial condition... because air is added.  If the air pupmp stops, then most of the buckets will empty of air, but it will stop with some partially filled with air... will have to apply some work to force the mechanism around to fully empty (friction losses will keep some buckets submerged.)


But; working with that premise...
-----
Let me interject a experimental note -
    I have a trash can filled to a depth of about 1.5 feet of water; it has a diameter of about 1 foot. 
   I have a 3 inch inner-diameter pipe also filled with.. less... feet of water.
   I have a pump with a weight of certain mass attached to the handle, so when the nozzle is at the bottom of a container and it's displacement of the water makes the water level equal.  raising the pump so the weight pulls the handle, the same mass is required to get air to come out of the end of the pipe.  It is depth and not overall mass that matters.  Need some refinement; I keep knocking things over and losing water, so it is only a very rough approximation.
-------


Initial condition - 1atm ambient air.  and most buckets empty, and water at its lowest level (having none displaced)
work is applied to compress 4 times the volume of air required to 2 atm (which is enough for an apparatus less than 5 meters in height). (nRT * ln(V2/V1) where ln is natural log function and n R and T are all constants.. can substitute P2/P1 instead of V2/V1 since the tempurature change is irrelavent at such low compression and low volumes)


This compressed air is allowed to enter the water vessel, at the bottom.  This air is captured in a bucket, which imparts a lifting force due to displacing the water from the bucket (the water is already displaced in the entire chamber as the air is allowed to enter)  the moving of the displaced volume requires no work.   In this case actually 100% of the work put into compressing the air is lost in its decompression... as the decompression happens 0 work from its expansion is recaptured. 


The rising bucket will eventually invert and release its decompressed air back to the 1atm ambient.
But a bucket with displaced air in it will move, and its force across time can do work.  This force is (mass displaced * g).  But, this is not connected at all to the work required to compress the air.  So there is no way you can say 'input=output' and be done with it.  Since 100% of the work applied to the input is lost, but the output definatly has more than 0 energy available.




there is lost work is in the friction of the chain links bending around the sprocket and whatever bearings the sprocket's shaft is attached to so it can rotate.
(note: a larger sprocket allows more toque at a lower speed.... a smaller sprocket will make the shaft turn faster, but reduce torque.  (much like a transformer where I1*V1=I2v2 ...   torque1 * speed1 = torque2 * speed2 ) )